hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,565 +3,348
Well, for one thing, the 9400F Is going to be borderline bad silicon (that's why it is sold as an F SKU - the gpu on the die was defective). That means higher temperatures (which is saying something on Gen 9s) and potential instability down the road. These F chips are literally garbage that Intel would be throwing away if it weren't for their current shortfall in manufacturing capacity.
For another, I picked up a 1600 for $109 a couple of months ago, and it runs 4ghz on all cores all day long, which is more than good enough to cap my 1080 at 1440p in every game. It's a placeholder until I can get a 12 core Zen2, then will go into my server to run Plex.
Lastly, that same $170 is going to get you 8+ cores with smp at the same clock and probably the same IPC that use half the power.
I'm going to pretend someone buying AMD didn't just say a 65w Intel chip runs hot. AMD has a long history with producing hot and power hungry chips. Notice the 2800(X) doesn't exist even with a shrink to 12nm.
99% of gamers do not benefit from more than 8 cores, but AMD's "moar cores" marketing sure worked on you didn't it?
Ryzen is best for gaming when the GPU is doing most of the work, like @ 1440p...
I'm glad we had this chat. You learned a lot and that's all that matters.
TECHSPOT agrees:
"The true Intel alternative to the Ryzen 2600 right now is the Core i5-9400F. This newer CPU can be had for $170 matching the R5 2600 and out of the box the i5-9400F is arguably the better CPU. We're talking about a six-core processor with no Hyper-Threading (6-core, 6-thread), built on a 14 nm process and no integrated graphics."
Last edited: